[ogsa-naming-wg] Question on WS-Naming

[Mark McKeown]

Hi Andrew,

> Mark,
> The reason is simple - we believe that WS-Naming is applicable to all web
> services - not just those heading down the "grid path". There are also
> political issues - including WSRF would make it unpalatable for a number of
> potential users.

I understand - I wasn't sure of the GGF/OGSA policy wrt WSRF.

>
> Also,
>
> "The client would only have to use the standard WSRF get*
> operations to retrieve a new EPR - the EPR would be the
> ResourceProperty document. The reuse of WSRF would
> also add support for updating the resolver WS-Resource
> through the standard WSRF operations."
>
> The way I read that comment is that you'd ask the resource itself for a new
> EPR. What if the resource is unavailable?

I think my explanation may not have been clear - the resolver
WS-Resource would be a seperate WS-Resource/Web Service from
the one it was providing the resolving service for.

Also have you seen IETF RFC 4122 - "A Universally Unique
IDentifier (UUID) URN Namespace" it may be applicable to
WS-Naming.

cheers
Mark


>
> Andrew
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org] On
> Behalf Of Mark McKeown
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 5:29 AM
> To: ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: [ogsa-naming-wg] Question on WS-Naming
>
>
> Hi folks,
>          I have been reading the WS-Naming spec and was
> wondering why the authors chose not to use WSRF?
>
> If I have an EPR and I want to provide a resolver for
> it I could use a WS-Resource to implement the resolver
> for that EPR.
>
> The client would only have to use the standard WSRF get*
> operations to retrieve a new EPR - the EPR would be the
> ResourceProperty document. The reuse of WSRF would
> also add support for updating the resolver WS-Resource
> through the standard WSRF operations.
>
> The EPR of the resolver WS-Resource could be embeded in the
> original EPR as is done already in the WS-Naming spec.
>
> This approach seems to have a number of advantages to me:
> reuse of WSRF and WSRF client tooling, no longer any need
> to try and compare EPRs, de-couples the need for
> naming from resolving EPRs (naming is of course important
> in its own right), simplifies the WS-Naming spec
> (no need for WSDL).
>
>
> cheers
> Mark
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Mark Mc Keown                            RSS
> Mark.McKeown at man.ac.uk 	                 Manchester Computing
> +44 161 275 0601     		         University of Manchester
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>